[open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database of "open" resources?

Wed Aug 18 20:01:15 UTC 2010

Quoting Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl at googlemail.com>:

>
>> WorldCat as
>> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
>> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.
>
> The phrase "WorldCat as a whole" confuses me. I wouldn't say the whole
> is copyrighted but certain components or aspects of it. E.g., there
> most probably are property and related rights associated with the
> technology behind WorldCat (which probably aren't owned by OCLC), the
> logos and design and other things. But that doesn't sum up to WorldCat
> as a whole being protected.

I probably said that wrong. You can claim copyright in a web site,  
which has design elements, some created content, etc. So, for example,  
the site of Amazon.com has a copyright notice ("© 1996-2010,  
Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates"), but that does not mean that  
Amazon claims to hold a copyright on every bit of data that appears on  
their pages. A newspaper can claim copyright in its web site but may  
not hold copyright in every article that displays. Copyright can cover  
design elements, look and feel, etc. In the cases of web sites I think  
it's often unclear what is being covered.

There is a similar copyright notice on the WorldCat home page:

What does this refer to exactly? I don't know. It links to a page that  
says simply (but not clearly):

"OCLC users are hereby granted permission to reproduce this  
publication for their internal use. Reproduction of substantial  
portions of this publication must contain the OCLC copyright notice."

I find it very confusing when OCLC refers to "WorldCat" in their  
documents because I'm not sure exactly how they are defining it.  
What's "this publication?" Sometimes they seem to mean the database,  
other times they seem to be mainly referring to the services. Is it an  
OPAC? A cataloging service? An ILL service? Where do they draw the line?

kc

>
> Adrian
>
> 2010/8/18 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>> Quoting Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de>:
>>
>>
>>> "OCLC claims copyright rights in WorldCat as a compilation, it does  not
>>> claim copyright ownership of individual records".
>>
>> Adrian, OCLC claims the rights, but that does not mean that OCLC *has* the
>> rights. Anyone can claim rights in anything, but until it is settled via a
>> legal procedure it is just a claim. So do not assume that this claim = legal
>> rights. That is why the lawsuit between SkyRiver and OCLC is so interesting
>> to some of us: it may be the first time that some of our assumptions are
>> actually scrutinized in a court of law. I don't know if this particular
>> issue will be part of that discussion, but many of us think that WorldCat's
>> bibliographic data does not meet the minimum US legal requirements for
>> copyright protection. (The key point of which is "creativity." A mere
>> compilation of facts does not meet the creativity requirement.) WorldCat as
>> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
>> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet